Social Motivations in a Cyber World

“The major threat to security, our way of life, to prosperity  is not kinetic warfare or terrorism, but is in fact espionage and crime and cheating,” according to Ben Hammersley, technologist and Wired editor at large. Hammersley spoke on “Adding Fuel to the Wi-fire: What is the Nexus between Social Media, Emerging Technologies and digital Radicalization” at The Brookings Institute on Tuesday, July 17th .

Hammersley explained that he is mainly a “Futurist … get[ting] paid to live six months in the future and tell stories about it.” He often referred to Moore’s Law, which is the concept that every 12-18 months the computing capabilities of a certain product that costs “x” amount of dollars, will have twice as much computing power for the same cost, or that the cost of a unit with the same commuting power will cost half as much as it did previously. As current British ambassador to East London Tech City, essentially the British Silicon Valley, he knows what he’s talking about. Continue reading

Up for Debate: Laser Isotope Separation

Prof. Mark Raizen and Dr. Francis Slakey debate the benefits and risks of dual use scientific research. Is the promise of tapping into the rare isotopes of the elements worth risking the threat of nuclear proliferation?

Debate: The Risks and Benefits of Laser Isotope Separation (LIS)

In April 2012, Nature published “Controversial Research: Good Science Bad Science,”  which focused on types of scientific research that could seriously damage global security and pose ethical dilemmas. The article called for an open and frank debate about dual use scientific research. One of the examples in the article was the use of lasers to separate radioactive isotopes.

Laser isotope separation (LIS) could be used to efficiently produce fuel for nuclear power reactors and to produce radioactive isotopes for medical use. But there is a down side. LIS could also be used to produce the fissile material, particularly highly-enriched uranium, needed to build nuclear weapons. A number of lawmakers and nuclear-proliferation experts have voiced concern that a commercially successful laser-enrichment program in the United States could reinvigorate research on the technology in a global scale.

Dr. Mark Raizen and Dr. Francis Slakey debate below about the benefits and risks of this technology.

Dr. Mark Raizen, University of Texas at Austin

Our planet contains vast natural resources, still largely untapped. These resources hold the promise of detecting and treating cancer, saving energy, making new materials, and advancing basic science. What are these valuable resources? Where can they be found? How can we make them available?

The answer to the first question is that the resources are rare isotopes of the elements. The answer to the second question is easy: these isotopes are literally in our midst, within the elements that make up our planet.  The third question is the crux of the matter; isolating rare isotopes of elements has been extremely difficult because they have nearly the same physical and chemical properties as other, more common, isotopes of the same element. This is the reason that many rare isotopes are the most expensive commodity on earth, with a price that can be over one thousand times that of gold! This prohibitive cost severely limits the exploration of new applications and therapies.

Here are just two examples of rare isotopes that could be widely used if only they were less expensive : Nickel-64,  a stable isotope with a natural abundance of only 1 percent.  It can be converted in a medical accelerator to Copper-64 which is a short lived radio-isotope with great promise for PET scans and cancer therapy.  Calcium-48 is a stable isotope with a natural abundance of 0.2 percent.  It is used as a diagnostic for osteoporosis in women, bone development in children, and for a basic physics experiment that may determine the mass of the neutrino.

The only method for separating such isotopes dates back more than eighty years. This method, known as the Calutron, relies on electron ionization of atoms, and separation by the charge-to-mass ratio. Although first used in the 1930s for separating uranium, they were replaced by the gas centrifuge which is limited mostly to that element.  The Calutrons remained as general purpose, though inefficient, isotope separators.  Today, these machines are only operating in Russia, with an obsolete technology that is facing imminent shut-down. Without an alternative approach, most rare isotopes will not be available in the future at any price. The looming shortage of crucial isotopes is a national priority, as indicated by a 2009 report of the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee to the Department of Energy, “Isotopes for the Nation’s Future.”

I recommend this report to anyone with an interest in the scope and uses of stable and radio-isotopes.  One topic discussed in this report is laser isotope separation. Although isotopes are almost identical in every manner, the wavelengths of the atomic transitions of different isotopes are slightly shifted from one another.

This “isotope shift” makes it possible to excite only one isotope with a narrow-band laser, leaving the others unaffected.  The common wisdom until now has been that one must use lasers to selectively ionize the desired atoms. However, it turns out that in order to have a large probability for ionization, very high laser power at multiple colors is required. The scale is so large that it required a government effort, with one dedicated goal:  laser isotope separation of uranium.  This  effort was ultimately terminated in 1999, mainly due to the high cost and complexity of the lasers, and to the best of my knowledge is not being pursued.  Laser separation of a molecular compound of uranium is still being pursued commercially by GE-Hitachi.  I have followed this work from a distance, and always felt there must be a solution which would be simple and cost-effective for the many smaller-scale isotopes that are needed.  It came from an unexpected direction.

Over the past few years, my research has focused on developing general methods for controlling the motion of atoms in gas phase.  The successful realization of these methods uses single-photons to control the magnetic state of each atom, followed by magnetic manipulation.  It has brought to reality a thought experiment by James Clerk Maxwell from 1870 known as Maxwell’s Demon.  This work is reviewed in an article that I wrote forScientific American“Demons, Entropy and the Quest  for Absolute Zero,” published in the March 2011 issue.  I  realized that these very same methods can also be used for efficient isotope separation with low-power solid-state lasers, a paradigm shift from ionization.  We are pursuing this avenue with a proof-of-principle experiment, soon to be completed.  This will then be applied commercially towards production of important medical isotopes, where the need is most urgent.  In fact, this could save your life!

Dr. Francis Slakey, American Physical Society

Over the last 15 years I’ve criss-crossed the globe and witnessed its full range of stories. And when you see dust kick up from the bare feet of a tribeswoman walking 5 miles to get water, you realize that we face enormous global challenges, including climate change, pandemics and access to clean water, to name just a few. Regardless of our individual views on any of those issues, I’m sure that we can all agree on one thing: let’s not add more challenges to the list. We have enough to deal with.

So, when the research that we carry out has the possibility of creating significant risks, then we should pause, reflect, and make sure that we don’t add yet another burden to an already challenged world.

Biologists did just that – pause and reflect – in exemplary fashion a few months ago when they confronted the H5N1 issue.  Concerned about potential security risks associated with publishing particular work on airborne transmission of avian flu, the relevant community of biologists put a self-imposed pause on research to consider the implications and challenges.  It was thoughtfully done, with only modest reluctance from some scientists, and with benefit to all.

We are now at a moment when it would be fruitful for the relevant members of the physics and engineering communities to carry out a similar examination of the risks and benefits of some areas of isotope separation research.

So far, we’ve gotten lucky in uncovering when countries are developing nuclear weapons programs. However, new isotope separation technologies are emerging that are smaller, more efficient and harder, if not impossible, to detect. The technologies are in various phases of development, from basic research to commercialization. Consider this:

Global Laser Enrichment, a joint venture of General Electric-Hitachi, is constructing and evaluating a laser-based method of uranium enrichment (SILEX) that is substantially more efficient and could leave little prospect for detection if stolen and acquired by a rogue group.

Professor Raizen has developed a method of single-photon isotope separation using a magnetic trap and low-power laser excitation for a more efficient method to develop much-needed medical isotopes. His technique isn’t intended to enrich

uranium, although the potential may well be there.

These developments raise the same issue: the on-going push for greater efficiency in isotope separation carries associated proliferation risks.

These risks of more efficient isotope separation are well known to the U.S. government. For example, the SILEX technology under development in North Carolina was the subject of a multi-agency proliferation-assessment report. The report conceded that “Laser-based enrichment processes have always been of concern from the perspective of nuclear proliferation… a laser enrichment facility might be easier to build without detection and could be a more efficient producer of high enriched uranium for a nuclear weapons program.”

The report ominously stated that it seemed likely that the technology would “renew interest in laser enrichment by nations with benign intent as well as by proliferants with an interest in finding an easier route to acquiring fissile material for nuclear weapons.”

So the risks of enrichment technology are well documented, and the consequences of the proliferation of the technology are clear and present, most immediately in Iran.

Of course, the easiest path for our research community would be to claim that these risks are someone else’s responsibility – we are scientists after all, not police. Yet, the biologists didn’t take that easy path. They broadened their sense of responsibility outside of the lab. They paused, considered, deliberated. And there is a practical reason for doing this. If scientists don’t consider the risks, we leave it to others to decide. And we may not like what they conclude.

What would we conclude from pausing and carrying out our own “stress test”? I can’t predict the outcome. In the case of the biologists, they strengthened their system with a centerpiece called the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity that monitors “dual-use research of concern” and it has received enthusiastic endorsements from scientists. The biologists came out of the process stronger. So can we.


Dr. Mark Raizen:

We live in exciting times, as we learn to control the physical world on the atomic and molecular scale. Efficient isotope separation is one example of a wider range of capabilities that include the assembly of new materials on the nanoscale, one atom at a time. These are powerful developments that can bring many benefits to mankind, but can also be intimidating to some. In particular, the topic of efficient isotope separation can evoke a fear of nuclear proliferation, but is that really true?

In fact, our methods will actually be used to reduce the risk of proliferation. How can that be? Consider Technecium-99m (Tc-99m).

This short-lived radio-isotope is used for medical imaging and is a major tool in nuclear medicine. Today, all Tc-99m is produced using weapon-grade uranium as a target in a nuclear reactor. The need to use such weapon-grade uranium poses a serious risk of proliferation, and the U.S. has led a worldwide effort to halt this mode of production by 2016. An alternative is to enrich a stable isotope, Molybdenum-100, which can be converted to Tc-99m by a clean nuclear process. You can read more about this topic in an excellent article by Dr. Tom Ruth. Our method of laser isotope separation can be used to produce enriched Molybdenum-100, and will therefore be an important tool in stopping nuclear proliferation.

Could our method be used for enrichment of uranium? That is a valid concern, and we should certainly pause and reflect, as suggested by Dr. Slakey. My best guess is that the application of our method to uranium is unlikely to be competitive with existing methods.

The basis for our approach is laser activation of the magnetic state of an atom, requiring a relatively simple atomic structure. Uranium has a very complex structure which may not be amenable to this new process. It is perhaps tempting to say that a method for enriching one isotope could also be applied to another. However, each element is unique in its physical and chemical properties. For example, the starting point for most atomic laser separation projects is to heat the solid material and vaporize it, forming an atomic beam. According to unclassified documents on the laser uranium separation project, it took years to find materials that do not react chemically with hot uranium metal. In contrast, many elements, such as calcium or ytterbium, are routinely used in atomic beams in research laboratories and do not have those problems. Similarly, the atomic structure and required lasers are unique to every atom.  A good analogy is to say that not all fruit are the same. In fact, uranium and calcium are as different from each other as apples and oranges.

In conclusion, with so many evident benefits we should not fear the future. We should look instead to the past and be inspired by the words of the great Marie Curie who said:  “I am one of those who think like Nobel, that humanity will draw more good than evil from new discoveries.”

About the Debaters:

Mark Raizen earned his the University of Texas at Austin in 1989 under the joint supervision of Prof. Steven Weinberg and Prof. H. J. Kimble. He has held the Sid W. Richardson Chair in Physics since 2000. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the Optical Society of America. He was a National Science Foundation Young Investigator, an Office of Naval Research Young Investigator, and a Sloan Foundation Fellow. Prof. Raizen and his group pioneered the development of general methods for cooling and trapping of atoms, applicable to most atoms in the periodic table. This work opens new directions for basic science, and also has world-changing applications: efficient isotope separation.

Francis Slakey received his PhD in physics from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign in 1992. He is the Associate Director of Public Affairs for the American Physical Society where he oversees APS legislative activities, specializing in energy and security policy. He is also The Upjohn Lecturer on Physics and Public Policy and the Co-Director of the Program on Science in the Public Interest at Georgetown University. He is a Fellow of the APS, a Fellow of the AAAS, a MacArthur Scholar, and a Lemelson Research Associate of the Smithsonian Institution. He is also the first person in history to both summit the highest mountain on every continent and surf every ocean, a global journey that is the subject of his best selling adventure memoir “To The Last Breath”.


About Up for Debate:

In Up For Debate, FAS invites knowledgeable outside contributors to discuss science policy and security issues. This debate among experts is conducted via email and posted on FAS invites a demographically and ideologically diverse group to comment – a unique FAS feature that allows readers to reach conclusions based on both sides of an argument rather than just one point of view.


Please read the guidelines for the official debate and rebuttal policy for participants of FAS’s ‘Up For Debate.’ All participants are required to follow these rules. Each opinion must stay on topic and feature relevant content, or be a rebuttal. No ad hominem and personal attacks, name calling, libel, or defamation is allowed, and proper citations must be given.